I think they've got it backwards.

[novapsyche]

The Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002 Justice Department memo written in response to the CIA's request: "If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the draft states. "In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Memo offered justification for use of torture


They might as well have tacked on "necessarily" to the end of that first statement. It's utterly implied.

I fear this fuzzy logic.